.C8M6 



^°-;^ 











-3^ vp- 






.•^&'. %.^^ /Ji^'v \/ .'^■. %,s^^ :P%'' 

?• . ^'"% . •^' ,/X ""^ 






A 



^. 
























.y 



^^' 






o 



0-' -^^ 



o 



^'^ X^^ -^ 



. c « ^^ 

The Mississippi Chocftaw Claim. 



Washington, D. C, January 21, 1914. 

Statement of the delegates of the Mississippi, Alabama 
and Louisiana Choctaw Council with reference to the follow- 
ing subjects: 

First. The nature of their claims. 

Second. The proposed legislation now pending before 
Congress. 
Third. Their need for relief. 
Fourth. The approval of their general contract. 



First. The Nature of Their Claims. 

From the time the commission appointed uhder the act 
of August 23, 1842, completed its work, in 1845, no roll of 
Mississippi Choctaws who remained in Mississippi under 
article 14 of the treaty of 1830 was made or kept until aft^r 
the passage of the Curtis act of June 28, 1898, section 21 of 
which provides that : 

"Said commission shall have the authority to de- 
termine the identity of Choctaw Indians claiming 
rights in the Choctaw Nation under article 14 of the 
treaty between the United States and the Choctaw 
Nation concluded September 27, 1830, and they may 
administer oaths, examine witnesses, and perform all 
other acts necessary thereto, and make report to the 
Secretary of the Interior." 



The names of Mississippi Choctaws who received patents 
under article 14 of the treaty of 1830 and those to whom 
scrip was issued under the supplemental provision of the 
act of August 23, 1842 (5 Stat., 513), are found on pages 3 
to 26 of H. R. Doc. 898, 61st Congress, 2d session. 

Pursuant to the authority of section 21 of the act of 1898 
the Dawes Commission conducted hearings in the State of 
Mississippi, terminating on Fehruary 24, 1899, and pre- 
sided over by Commissioner McKennon. From testimony 
taken by him the commission prepared a report and roll 
dated March 10, 1899, containing the names of 1923 indi- 
viduals. Concerning these the report states: 

"Of these, there are two families, and probably a 
few other persons, who are mixed bloods, while all 
the others are full-blood Choctaw Indians. The com- 
mission finds that only a few families of these Choc- 
taws own land, while all are poor, ignorant and help- 
less — in almost every case susceptible of imposition 
and wrong at the hands of the white man, but re- 
markably peaceable, law-abiding and industrious. It 
is a rare incident that any one of these Choctaws is 
charged with the commission of a crime." 

Of the 1,923 persons identified as Mississippi Choctaws on 
this report of March 10, 1899, also known as the McKennon 
Roll, less than half, or 880, are now on the final citizenship 
rolls of the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma ; 1,063 are not on 
these rolls and are now claimants to an interest in the Choc- 
taw estate. Of this number 538 individuals were never 
placed on any other roll of identified Mississippi Choctaws, 
while the remaining 525 individuals, after re-examination 
by the commission during 1901 and 1902, were included in 
the rolls of identified Mississippi Choctaws approved by the 
Secretary of the Interior on February 14, 1903. 

In addition to the foregoing there were about 500 full- 
blood Choctaws who did not appear before Commissioner Mc- 
Kennon in 1899, but who made their applications and proof 
before the commission in 1901 and 1902, and were there- 



3 

after identified on what was known as the Roll of Identified 
Missisi^ippi Choctaws, approved February 14, 1903, by the 
Secretary of Interior, but who failed to remove within six 
months! thereafter and are therefore not on the final citizen- 
sliip roll of the Choctaw Nation. 

As there were 1,643 identified Mississippi Clioctaws who 
removed and are now Choctaw citizens, it appears that sub- 
stantially one-half of the Indians identified as Mississippi 
Choctaws entitled under article 14 of the treaty of 1830 are 
• denied their rights. This number is reduced to about 1,200 
by deaths occurring during the period of eleven to fourteen 
years which has since elapsed. The classes of Mississippi 
Choctaws who have been identified but not finally enrolled 
are substantially as follows: 

First. 538 Mississippi Choctaws identified on the McKen- 
non Roll but not identified on the roll of 1903. 

Second. 525 Mississippi Choctaws on the McKennon Roll 
of 1899 and dso on the roll of identified Choctaws approved 
February 14, 1903. 

Third. About 500 other Mississippi Choctaws on the roll 
of identified Mississippi Choctaws approved in 1903 and sup- 
plemental additions in 1904-5-6. 

The Claims of the 538 Mississippi Choctaws on the Mc- 
Kennon Roll but Not on the Approved Rolls. 

The records show that these Indians were enrolled by the 
Dawes Commission after a full hearing of their claims; that 
the Dawes Commission discharged its duty under the act of 
1898, section 21, by reporting a list of names to the Secre- 
tary of the Interior; that the Secretary of the Interior, in a 
promulgated decision, held that the matter of the approval 
of this roll would be suspended until the submission of the 
general rolls of the Choctaw Nation (decision of June 15, 
1899) . That on November 27, 1901 , the Dawes Commi.^sion 
requested permission to withdraw the McKennon Roll and 



report of March 10, 1899 ; that the Department on January 
9, 1901, and February 7, 1901, refused permission to with- 
draw the report and roll, returning to the commission one of 
the duplicate copies with instructions not to make any 
changes, ''but if it should appear that any of the names 
should be stricken from said schedule the commission should 
make a report to the Department embodying therein such 
suggestions and recommendations as the commission deems 
appropriate' for such action as the Department may con- 
sider necessary under the circumstances;" that on February 
27, 1907, without any further evidence or consideration of 
these cases, the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs rec- 
ommended the Department that "in order to finally dispose 
of this roll so that there may be no further question as to 
whether the people whose names appear thereon should be 
allowed to share in the distribution of the lands and funds 
of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations" it should be disap- 
proved, and on March 1, 1907, the Assistant Secretary of the 
Interior, in accordance with that recommendation, disap- 
proved the roll. 

All of these facts are matters of record and the names of 
the 538 individuals whose identification and rights were set 
aside and forfeited by this action of the Assistant Secretary 
of the Interior on March 1, 1907, without notice, without a 
hearing, and with no right or time for appeal or review, ex- 
cept in Congress, 4re contained in the letter dated December 
30, 1911, with enclosures, from the Secretary of the Interior 
to the Honorable John H. Stephens, chairman of the Com- 
mittee of Indian Affairs of the House of Representatives. 

Before discussing in detail the action of the Department, 
briefly outlined above, we desire to quote the views of the 
Honorable Robert L. Owen with reference to this treatment 
of these Indians as expressed in the brief filed in the Court 
of Claims on his behalf on April 20, 1913, in which the 
following statement is found: 

"It will thus be seen that there was a secret under- 
handed opposition to the Mississippi Choctaws, be- 



cause it mii?t bo rcnicinhcrod that this roll of identi- 
fication made by the Dawes Coinniissicjii Mareii 10, 
1899, and submitted by 'report to the Secretary of 
the Interior' was pigeon-holed for eight years and 
then disapproved, nritliout notice. This policy was 
niinous. for many of the Mississipj)! Cho<-taws, full- 
blood Indians, relied U[)on the Interior Department 
to advise them when their identification was complete, 
so that tliey might move to the Choctaw country with 
safety. The Interior Department held those identi- 
fied on this roll of 1899 in ignorance and uncer- 
tainty until it was too late to move and then disap- 
proved the roll. The gross injustice of this procedure 
is manifest and no pretense can be made that the 
controlling officials of the Interior Department really 
entertained any genuine sympathy with the enroll- 
ment of the poor full-blood Mississippi Choctaws. 

''The Secretary also refused to approve any plan 
proposed to finance the removal of the Mississippi 
Choctaws who were too poor to remove themselves, 
although plaintiff Owen urged that it be done, from 
1900 to 1903." 

****♦*♦ 

"The report declares that the Mississippi Choctaws 
were poor, ignorant and helpless. This report in be- 
half of the full-blood Mississippi Choctaws, signed 
and submitted by the Dawes Commission, icas dis- 
approved eight years later by Mr. Secretary Hitch- 
cock on March 4, 1907, without notice or warning, 
so that no person upon this roll ever knew for eight 
years whether he was so far identified as to be en- 
titled to remove as an identified Mississippi Clioctaw, 
and finally the entire schedule was rejected without 
notice." 

These 538 individuals, if identified, w^ere entitled under 
then existing law to remove to the Choctaw Nation and receive 
estates worth in the aggregate about $5,000,000. The De- 
partment knew their helpless condition. It knew they were 
full-bloods, and that the only change in the law regarding 
their identification had been the sweeping provisions of sec- 
tion 41 of the act of July 1, 1902, to enroll all full-bloods. 



6 

It had no evidence before it other than the report of the 
commission that they were entitled to identification; that 
they were full-bloods, and that the majority were children. 
Yet the Secretary disapproved their enrollment, for the 
stated purpose of forfeiting their right to receive an estate 
of $5,000,000. 

It is true that the Secretary in taking this action states 
that "the Indian Office considers that in view of various 
changes made in the law since the date of this report or roll 
that it no longer has any validity." We challenge any one 
to point to a single change in the law having any bearing 
upon the identification or enrollment of these Indians other 
than the act of 1902, expressly recognizing the full-blood 
rule of evidence followed by the commission in preparing 
the McKennon Roll and confirming their rights to enroll- 
ment. 

This action of the Department, on March 1, 1907, when 
thousands of cases were being acted upon without time for 
consideration by the responsible officials, would have been 
impossible under other circumstances, with opportunity to 
examine the records of the Department and to appreciate 
the provisions of the act of 1902 directing the enrollment 
of the full-bloods in Mississippi. 

Second and Third Classes Barred by Failure to Remove. 

We only desire to present briefly two phases of the claim 
of these Choctaws. Their identity as Choctaws entitled under 
article 14 was settled ten years ago. They failed to remove 
within the time required by the act of July 1, 1902, and the 
only questions are — 

1. Was that requirement as contained in the act fair or 
proper? 

2. Were they entitled to Government aid which they 
failed to receive, and were they in fact prevented from re- 
maining by the agents of the Government? 



The first question requires the consideration of many 
factvS — the policy of Conp'css, the known inul)ilily of those 
Indiiuis to roMiove, the continuing force of tlieir agrecnK-nt 
expressed in aiticlc 11 of the treaty of 1<S30, to the termina- 
tion of which they iiavc never assented. 

The second cjuostion c-an only he answered in (he aflirnia- 
tive. 

In every removal of Indians the novcrnment has provided 
the expense. It is one of the <)l)ligati(jns of the guardianshii) 
Congress has exercised over their affairs. It is a privilege of 
that guardianship that permits the United States to desig- 
nate tlieir domicile, that warrants their removal from one 
section of the country where they have lived for centuries to 
a country new and strange to them, hut this privilege carries 
with it tlie duty of seeing that adequate provision is made 
for the removal of a dependent and helpless people. 

Although approximately 3,000 Mississippi Choctaws were 
to be removed, and the reports of the Dawes Commis- 
sion showed that they were unable to remove themselves, 
Congress appropriated $20,000 for this purpose. 

The railway fare from Meridian, Mississippi, was $19.50 
apiece, or $58,500 for these Indians as a whole. The appro- 
priation was largely expended in general expenses of the 
Government agents — travel, printing, etc. — with the result 
that the Government removed 269 individuals and created 
a deficit in the appropriation. 

In the Winton case in the Court of Claims, in a deposition 
of Pat Chitto, one of the present claimants, given at Meridian 
on May 20, 1909, he states: 

"Q. Can you state any reason why you did not go 
out to the Indian Territor}^ along with the other Mis- 
sissippi Clioctaws? 

"A. Yes, sir. Because I had received no notice 
from the agent of the Dawes Commission, who said 
the Government would take me to the Indian Terri- 
tory. But I have not received the notice from the 
agent and I stayed and waited for the notice from the 
aeent until some folks told me I had lo.st my rights. 



8 

"Q. Did you make any effort to go with any other 
person ? 

"A. I did not make any effort to go with anybody 
else because I was waiting on the Government. 

"Q. Did the Dawes Commission or anybody in the 
office say anything to you about going with anybody 
else? 

"A. They told me not to make any contract to go 
with anybody, because the Government would take 
me there without costing me anything." 

In his cross-examination by George M. Anderson, of the 
Department of Justice, he testified: 

''I made a contract with Charles F. Winton before 
the Dawes Commission came to Carthage, Miss. 
When the Dawes Commission came there I appeared 
before him, and he asked me if I had made any con- 
tract with anybody, and I told him yes, but he ad- 
vised me not to go with the party I made the con- 
tract with, because the party I made contract with 
would take half of my lands, and half of all my folk's 
lands. The Dawes Commission told me that the 
Government would notify me, then take me out to 
the Indian Territory, but I have never got no notice 
from what he told me I would get it, only just the 
identification, they were all the papers I got. 

^ 5j€ -P *(• *I» 5|; 3J» 

"C. Q. Did any of your family make contracts 
; with anybody? 

"A. No, sir, only time — made contract with C. F. 
Winton. 

******* 

^'C. Q. As a matter of fact you never saw him again 
after you made the contract with him, did you? 

''A. I saw him away after a while. 

"C. Q. How long after? 

''A. About six months after I saw him, but the 
Dawes Commission advised me not to go with him, so 
I met up with him and told him I would not go._ I 
never told him about what the Dawes Commission 
told me, but I had made contract with C. F. Winton 
to give him half of my land to take me out there and 
supply me for one year. 



"C. Q. Did he ever come to take you out there? 

"A. No, sir, he never conic because 1 told liiin I 
would not ^o. I told liini that because tbe Dawes 
Commission told me tbe Ciovernment would take me 
out there without me giving them half my lands." 

This witness says that there are about forty families of 
full-bloods living in his neighborhood and he can name but 
one other man who speaks English. The futility of printed 
notices to these Indians is apparent. 

Second. The Legislation Now Pending. 

A bill which has been introduced by Representative Har- 
rison, of Mississippi, entitled "A bill to reopen the rolls of 
Choctaw-Chickasaw tribe and to provide for the awarding 
of the rights secured to c-ertain persons by the 14th article 
of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, of date September 
27, 1830," is reintroduced in the 63d Congress as H. R., 
4536. 

A bill identical with this has been introduced in the 
Senate by Senator Williams, Senate, 1840. 

This bill is directed more particularly to the claims of 
persons seeking a forum for the determination of their 
identity as the descendants of Choctaws who remained in 
Mississippi under the stipulations of the 14th article. It does 
not contain any provisions of special application to the full- 
bloods and it should be amended so as to recognize the rights 
of the identified Mississippi Choctaws and provide necessary 
protection for the estate secured to full-bloods. 

A bill prepared by the council was introduced by Mr. 
Powers as H. R. 8007. This bill embodies the provisions 
desired by the council, and we urge it as the measure best 
calculated to protect the interests of the identified full-bloods. 

A bill, H. R. 7926, was introduced by Representative 
Stephens, the third subdi\'ision of the first section of which 
directs the preparation of a special roll of full-blood Mis- 



10 

sissippi Choctaws identified by the Commission to the Five 
Civihzed Tribes prior to March 4, 1907, as well as any full- 
blood who was not so identified. Section 2 of this bill pro- 
vides that the persons so enrolled shall each receive $1,040.00 
in full satisfaction of all claims. This bill is objected to 
because it does not provide an adequate amount or an ade- 
quate system of caring for these Indians and their funds and 
property. 

Four days after introducing this bill Representative 
Stephens introduced H. R. 7974, entitled "A bill to adjust 
the final rolls and to settle the affairs of tlie Five Civilized 
Tribes in Oklahoma." This bill authorized the Secretary of 
the Interior to adjudicate the right to enrollment of the fol- 
lowing persons: 

First. Those whose names are on the so-called list of fifty- 
two or on the so-called Pollock list transmitted by the Secre- 
tary of the Interior February, 1912. 

Second. The cases of all persons whose enrollment was 
directed by the Secretary within six months prior to March 
4, 1907, but whose names do not appear on the final rolls. 
This bill also provides that Mississippi Choctaws so enrolled 
shall be entitled to all rights of other members of the Choc- 
taw tribe enrolled under the second provision. The passage 
of this bill would not provide for the settlement of the Mis- 
sissippi Choctaw claims, because it would merely include the 
rights of a few indiAjiduals whose claims present special 
features. 

Representative Murray, of Oklahoma, has introduced a 
bill, H. R. 10066, ''to purchase homes for the Mississippi 
Choctaws." This bill provides for a commission, one mem- 
ber of the Mississippi Choctaw Council, the president of the 
Board of Indian Commissioners, and one member to be 
selected by the President, to select and purchase lands in 
Mississippi for the use of the Mississippi Choctaws, the only 



11 

difference between this bill aiul tliat provided by tbc council 
being tliiit it is not as comprehensive in lis provisions and 
that tlie funds appropriated lU'e pro[)osed to be taken from 
the Federal Treasury instead of tlie funds of the Choctaw 
Nation. 

In addition to these pending bills there arc numerous 
provisions, Senate bill 27H, House bills 3389, 3390, 100G4, 
and House joint resohition 129, providing for the final 
settlement of tJio Choctaw {property, or for per capita pay- 
ments to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, which would 
distribute the existing funds of these Indians to such an ex- 
tent that it would be impossible to secure any fair settlement 
out of those funds for the Mississippi Choctaws, and for that 
reason the Mississippi Choctaws protest against tlie passage 
of these bills. 

Third. Their Need for Legislative Action. 

The.se claimants have been pressing their claim persists 
ently since 1896, when a large number of them presented 
their claims to the Dawes Commission under the general act 
creating that commission. They have successfully prose- 
cuted their claims for identification before the Dawes Com- 
mission in 1899 and greater part of them again in 1901, '2 
and '3. A number of these Indians were kept in ignorance 
of the action of the Department in the final closing of the 
rolls, but discovering the situation they commenced the prose- 
cution of these claims during the following year. 

Their condition in Mississippi is such that at the present 
time they are greatly in need of relief. The failure of the 
cotton crops in that section during the last few years has 
made it impossible for them to properly sustain themselves; 
they are forced to cultivate land on shares and without neces- 
sary stock, implements, and aid. Since the removal of the 
Choctaws in 1903 more than ten years have elapsed. The 
Choctaws who removed to Oklahoma have not only received 



12 

valuable estates, but their children have been educated in 
the Indian schools and have learned to speak English, to 
read and write, and to properiy protect and care for them- 
selves and for their property. These Choctaws in Mississippi 
are growing up under the old conditions, their children un- 
educated, and their condition generally is deplorable. 

Fourth. Approval of Contract. 

1. The claim of the Mississippi Choctaws is contested by 
the Choctaw Nation, which is paying, with the approval of 
the Department, cash attorneys' fees and expenses in its 
effort to defeat their claims, and the failure of the Depart- 
ment to recognize our attorneys is a detriment — 

a. In that it gives us no official, authoritative legal repre- 
sentation before Congress and the Department. 

6. In that it may make it impossible for us to secure neces- 
sary legal services and expenses for properly presenting our 
claims. 

2. The failure to approve our general contract makes it 
impossible to prevent the solicitation of individual contracts 
by other attorneys and agents. One or more attorneys, who 
have done and are doing nothing to advance our claims, are 
going about among the claimants soliciting contracts and 
the payment of cash fees of $2.50 from each individual. 
Anotlier attorney has sent contracts to each identified Choc- 
taw with a letter stating that it is an additional authorization 
required by a provision in the Indian appropriation act of 
1913, when in fact he had no authorization at any time to 
represent them. By these means it is sought to exact money 
from them and to lay the foundation for large claims for 
contingent fees in the event their claims are recognized or a 
settlement is made with these claimants, and the inability of 



RD 14-8 



13 

a great many of these Indians to speak English, and of 
practically all of them to read or write, renders tiiem subject 
to imposition. 

Very respectfully, 

WESLEY X JOHNSON, 
mark. 

CULBERTSON DAVIS, 
EMIL JOHN (AHOJEOBE), 

Delegates Representing the Mississippi, 
Alabama and Louisiana Choctaw Couneil. 

Witness : 

T. B. SULLIVAN. 

RALSTON & RICHARDSON, 

Attorneys. . 
JAMES E. ARNOLD, 

Attorney-in-Fact. 



[23660] 



^^ 



y 



sj5°<c 




^^-^^ 




^:^ ^^\ ■^.. '^ '/^ X^^^^^ /^^^ ^?^^i^,* '^ 




^^-c 



> . Y o o r-\ n * . s • ' J- 




.0^ 



j^ 'V ^ 












•..?',?;? 









^^ 






.'< 









^ ♦ • • ' o c^ 



•>' "V, 






^o. 



.•^^ 



\' 



> 



\ 



,v 



%. 






V 






.<> 



v-^. \ ; .'^^'::^. .s'^^ 



,0' 



*1 c>> 



"^o ■ 


* ^~ 


■^' . 


.A, 


-^o 






/,. 


o 




.1 


» 


^o 


V*' 


• 


•\° 


?.° 


■^^. 





■^^ -^^ 






^o '• 
•."-o 



-^^^0^ : 



o ' . - . ^ .0- 



o 



^°-n^. 



V 


















-n^-o^ 















,-^^ . 



. V' 40 



"^^ 



> V 



.^ 



•:^ 



' ,0 






.v^" 









% 









V ■ 



^^. v 






^^ 



.f°' 






DOi^BS BROS. 

LIBRARY BINDING 



> ^ 

>^ v?""' ST. AUGUSTINE ^'tt, r^ V 

4- J^^^ ^^■ 



Aq^ 



.0" 



.0 V-. 



.«; ' 



